A freshman at Duke University was outed as a porn performer by a fellow classmate earlier this year. The story was quickly picked up by national outlets. When the student revealed her porn alias, Belle Knox, a few weeks ago, she spurred another flurry of coverage.

As Knox said in an xoJane article, much of the attention she's received is focused on the question, "But why do you do porn?" A more revealing question, though, might be, why does everyone want to know why she does porn? Or, to put it another way, why is this story so fascinating to so many people?

Knox does have an answer to the question of why she, as a student, works in porn.

I couldn't afford $60,000 in tuition, my family has undergone significant financial burden, and I saw a way to graduate from my dream school free of debt, doing something I absolutely love. Because to be clear: My experience in porn has been nothing but supportive, exciting, thrilling and empowering.

For Knox, porn is a way to deal with the burden of college debt by doing a job she enjoys and even finds exhilarating—as opposed to her work as a waitress in high school, where she "felt like I was being degraded and treated like shit."

Knox's explanation is very clear and thoughtful. And because sex work is marked as different or special or iconic or unusual, there's a tendency to want to make any clear, thoughtful description a kind of iconic answer which speak for all sex workers. But there's no reason to think that all student sex workers have the same experience, anymore than you'd think that all student waitresses feel "degraded," as Knox did.

When I talked to other students who were working as sex workers, their experiences were rather different than Knox's. One woman I spoke to, who asked to be identified as L., is, like Knox, working on her B.A. She is, she says, "a fetish and (mostly amateur) porn model as well as a pro switch—a dominatrix who also submits." The relationship between her work and her schooling is, she said, "very complicated for me."

I started modeling three years ago simply because I wanted to. It was a process of trying to reclaim my sexuality and sexual presentation after a series of sexual assaults. Unfortunately it wasn’t enough to ameliorate a lot of the trauma I was dealing with, which exacerbated my mental health issues. I was in college full time at that point, getting by financially with a combination of loans, scholarships, and money my parents had set aside for my education. My mental illness progressed to the point that it started affecting my academics, and I was eventually hospitalized. I had to take a medical leave.

Without the scholarships and loan deferments, my parents couldn’t afford to keep supporting me. I might’ve moved back in with them, but our relationship is incredibly strained; child services was involved with our family a lot when I was a kid. I waited for years to get out of that house, and I knew I couldn’t go back. I struggled to find work. I applied for every job I could find and rarely got a phone call. I couldn’t make enough money through modeling without taking on jobs I wasn’t comfortable with. I was desperate and down to the wire on rent payment when I answered an ad to ‘become a dominatrix.’

I’ve been working in the industry ever since. My experience hasn’t been positive, and I’d rather leave sooner than later. Thankfully my health has improved and as of last summer I was feeling functional enough to return to school. I didn’t want to. One of the men who assaulted me works for an organization affiliated with the school, and I knew that returning to a women’s studies program as a sex worker would be rough. I was also nervous about how I’d be treated returning from a mental health leave. But I knew that if I ever wanted to leave the sex industry without having to scrape by on minimum wage, a degree was a necessary (though not sufficient) prerequisite. I decided not to push myself too hard and to return only part-time. That meant I didn’t qualify for scholarships, and so I’ve had to keep working.

Knox feels empowered both by her work in porn and by the chance to go to Duke, her "dream school." L, on the other hand, would rather get out of the industry. She'd also rather get out of school. She feels the administration treats her as a "second-class citizen" because of her mental-health issues, and would treat her even worse if they knew about her sex work. Her women's studies department, she says, views sex workers as "some fundamentally debased Other" rather than "as human beings who exist among them." She's only staying with the major because changing would require time and effort she can't afford.

Related Story

Another student sex worker I spoke to, Christina Parreira, had, again, a very different experience from Knox’s. Parreira (@SinCityGrrrl) has an M.A. in clinical psychology and is enrolled in a Ph.D. program in sociology at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas. She does cam work, some porn, stripping, and some fetish work. Unlike Knox and L., Parreira is out about her sex work. "The department seems to be a sort of hub for sex workers and sex work research, so it has been a non-issue," she says, adding that she was forced to conceal her work in an earlier doctoral program, and that, "It’s a relief to be in an academic environment that does not discriminate against its students based on occupation."

When I asked Parreira about the relationship between sex work and schooling, she said this:

The question makes the relationship sound much more complicated than it is. For me, it’s not a matter of needing to go to school to escape sex work for another career. Sex work just seems like a logical choice for a young woman who wants to indulge in several years of graduate school while simultaneously enjoying a middle-class lifestyle. I’m going to be honest, I could have probably been just fine without sex work and scraped by on meager assistantships, but I like money. I associate money with security, and I like not having to worry. I especially like that I can focus on school without having to work an extra 10 hours a week for low pay. Sex work was a logical decision for me, and a way to work on a Ph.D. while also being financially comfortable. When I finish school, I’ll pursue a career in academia, and I may or may not still engage in sex work from time to time, depending on my financial situation. My hope is that in the future, I will make enough money in my primary job as a professor/researcher without having to rely on a second job/sex work.

Where Knox presents sex work as empowering and L. finds it unpleasant but necessary, Parreira says that sex work "was a common sense decision for me." She adds, "I would never do sex work for free, but then again, I wouldn’t do any job for free."

In her recently published book Playing the Whore, Melissa Gira Grant argues that it's important to understand that all sex workers are not the same, and that attempting to define their work and their lives in totalizing terms is one way that they are stigmatized or controlled. With that in mind, I think it's important not to try to see Knox's experience, or L's experience, or Parreira's experience, as somehow the most real, or typical, or right. The fact that Knox finds porn empowering doesn't mean that porn is always empowering. The fact that L. would like to leave the industry doesn't mean that all sex workers want to leave the industry.

The one thing that they all do agree on, though, is that the stigma against sex workers makes their lives more difficult and dangerous. Even here, of course, the risks are different for each of them. Since she was outed, Knox has been harassed and threatened online; when she contacted police, they minimized her concern: "These brutal suggestions that people should kick me in the face if they saw me were nothing more than ‘childish threats,’ I was told." L., for her part, is condescended to by her department and professors and fears she could face expulsion if her school finds out how she's paying its bills; Parreira has fewer barriers at the moment, but still recognizes that sex work may, as she says, put up "mini road blocks in my professional (academic) future."

In short, varied as their relationships to school and to sex work are, Knox, L., and Parreira would all be better able to pursue their education and their futures if they weren't marked and stigmatized because of their jobs. All three of these women would, I think, agree with Parreira when she says, "My hope is that society will eventually evolve to a place where it can respect and recognize sex workers as the human beings and laborers that we are, minus all of the stigma and moralistic judgments."

Most Popular

Writing used to be a solitary profession. How did it become so interminably social?

Whether we’re behind the podium or awaiting our turn, numbing our bottoms on the chill of metal foldout chairs or trying to work some life into our terror-stricken tongues, we introverts feel the pain of the public performance. This is because there are requirements to being a writer. Other than being a writer, I mean. Firstly, there’s the need to become part of the writing “community”, which compels every writer who craves self respect and success to attend community events, help to organize them, buzz over them, and—despite blitzed nerves and staggering bowels—present and perform at them. We get through it. We bully ourselves into it. We dose ourselves with beta blockers. We drink. We become our own worst enemies for a night of validation and participation.

Even when a dentist kills an adored lion, and everyone is furious, there’s loftier righteousness to be had.

Now is the point in the story of Cecil the lion—amid non-stop news coverage and passionate social-media advocacy—when people get tired of hearing about Cecil the lion. Even if they hesitate to say it.

But Cecil fatigue is only going to get worse. On Friday morning, Zimbabwe’s environment minister, Oppah Muchinguri, called for the extradition of the man who killed him, the Minnesota dentist Walter Palmer. Muchinguri would like Palmer to be “held accountable for his illegal action”—paying a reported $50,000 to kill Cecil with an arrow after luring him away from protected land. And she’s far from alone in demanding accountability. This week, the Internet has served as a bastion of judgment and vigilante justice—just like usual, except that this was a perfect storm directed at a single person. It might be called an outrage singularity.

Most of the big names in futurism are men. What does that mean for the direction we’re all headed?

In the future, everyone’s going to have a robot assistant. That’s the story, at least. And as part of that long-running narrative, Facebook just launched its virtual assistant. They’re calling it Moneypenny—the secretary from the James Bond Films. Which means the symbol of our march forward, once again, ends up being a nod back. In this case, Moneypenny is a send-up to an age when Bond’s womanizing was a symbol of manliness and many women were, no matter what they wanted to be doing, secretaries.

Why can’t people imagine a future without falling into the sexist past? Why does the road ahead keep leading us back to a place that looks like the Tomorrowland of the 1950s? Well, when it comes to Moneypenny, here’s a relevant datapoint: More than two thirds of Facebook employees are men. That’s a ratio reflected among another key group: futurists.

Forget credit hours—in a quest to cut costs, universities are simply asking students to prove their mastery of a subject.

MANCHESTER, Mich.—Had Daniella Kippnick followed in the footsteps of the hundreds of millions of students who have earned university degrees in the past millennium, she might be slumping in a lecture hall somewhere while a professor droned. But Kippnick has no course lectures. She has no courses to attend at all. No classroom, no college quad, no grades. Her university has no deadlines or tenure-track professors.

Instead, Kippnick makes her way through different subject matters on the way to a bachelor’s in accounting. When she feels she’s mastered a certain subject, she takes a test at home, where a proctor watches her from afar by monitoring her computer and watching her over a video feed. If she proves she’s competent—by getting the equivalent of a B—she passes and moves on to the next subject.

Two hundred fifty years of slavery. Ninety years of Jim Crow. Sixty years of separate but equal. Thirty-five years of racist housing policy. Until we reckon with our compounding moral debts, America will never be whole.

And if thy brother, a Hebrew man, or a Hebrew woman, be sold unto thee, and serve thee six years; then in the seventh year thou shalt let him go free from thee. And when thou sendest him out free from thee, thou shalt not let him go away empty: thou shalt furnish him liberally out of thy flock, and out of thy floor, and out of thy winepress: of that wherewith the LORD thy God hath blessed thee thou shalt give unto him. And thou shalt remember that thou wast a bondman in the land of Egypt, and the LORD thy God redeemed thee: therefore I command thee this thing today.

— Deuteronomy 15: 12–15

Besides the crime which consists in violating the law, and varying from the right rule of reason, whereby a man so far becomes degenerate, and declares himself to quit the principles of human nature, and to be a noxious creature, there is commonly injury done to some person or other, and some other man receives damage by his transgression: in which case he who hath received any damage, has, besides the right of punishment common to him with other men, a particular right to seek reparation.

Even when they’re adopted, the children of the wealthy grow up to be just as well-off as their parents.

Lately, it seems that every new study about social mobility further corrodes the story Americans tell themselves about meritocracy; each one provides more evidence that comfortable lives are reserved for the winners of what sociologists call the birth lottery. But, recently, there have been suggestions that the birth lottery’s outcomes can be manipulated even after the fluttering ping-pong balls of inequality have been drawn.

What appears to matter—a lot—is environment, and that’s something that can be controlled. For example, one study out of Harvard found that moving poor families into better neighborhoods greatly increased the chances that children would escape poverty when they grew up.

While it’s well documentedthat the children of the wealthy tend to grow up to be wealthy, researchers are still at work on how and why that happens. Perhaps they grow up to be rich because they genetically inherit certain skills and preferences, such as a tendency to tuck away money into savings. Or perhaps it’s mostly because wealthier parents invest more in their children’s education and help them get well-paid jobs. Is it more nature, or more nurture?

The Wall Street Journal’s eyebrow-raising story of how the presidential candidate and her husband accepted cash from UBS without any regard for the appearance of impropriety that it created.

The Swiss bank UBS is one of the biggest, most powerful financial institutions in the world. As secretary of state, Hillary Clinton intervened to help it out with the IRS. And after that, the Swiss bank paid Bill Clinton $1.5 million for speaking gigs. TheWall Street Journal reported all that and more Thursday in an article that highlights huge conflicts of interest that the Clintons have created in the recent past.

The piece begins by detailing how Clinton helped the global bank.

“A few weeks after Hillary Clinton was sworn in as secretary of state in early 2009, she was summoned to Geneva by her Swiss counterpart to discuss an urgent matter. The Internal Revenue Service was suing UBS AG to get the identities of Americans with secret accounts,” the newspaper reports. “If the case proceeded, Switzerland’s largest bank would face an impossible choice: Violate Swiss secrecy laws by handing over the names, or refuse and face criminal charges in U.S. federal court. Within months, Mrs. Clinton announced a tentative legal settlement—an unusual intervention by the top U.S. diplomat. UBS ultimately turned over information on 4,450 accounts, a fraction of the 52,000 sought by the IRS.”

During the multi-country press tour for Mission Impossible: Rogue Nation, not even Jon Stewart has dared ask Tom Cruise about Scientology.

During the media blitz for Mission Impossible: Rogue Nation over the past two weeks, Tom Cruise has seemingly been everywhere. In London, he participated in a live interview at the British Film Institute with the presenter Alex Zane, the movie’s director, Christopher McQuarrie, and a handful of his fellow cast members. In New York, he faced off with Jimmy Fallon in a lip-sync battle on The Tonight Show and attended the Monday night premiere in Times Square. And, on Tuesday afternoon, the actor recorded an appearance on The Daily Show With Jon Stewart, where he discussed his exercise regimen, the importance of a healthy diet, and how he still has all his own hair at 53.

Stewart, who during his career has won two Peabody Awards for public service and the Orwell Award for “distinguished contribution to honesty and clarity in public language,” represented the most challenging interviewer Cruise has faced on the tour, during a challenging year for the actor. In April, HBO broadcast Alex Gibney’s documentary Going Clear, a film based on the book of the same title by Lawrence Wright exploring the Church of Scientology, of which Cruise is a high-profile member. The movie alleges, among other things, that the actor personally profited from slave labor (church members who were paid 40 cents an hour to outfit the star’s airplane hangar and motorcycle), and that his former girlfriend, the actress Nazanin Boniadi, was punished by the Church by being forced to do menial work after telling a friend about her relationship troubles with Cruise. For Cruise “not to address the allegations of abuse,” Gibney said in January, “seems to me palpably irresponsible.” But in The Daily Show interview, as with all of Cruise’s other appearances, Scientology wasn’t mentioned.

Some say the so-called sharing economy has gotten away from its central premise—sharing.

This past March, in an up-and-coming neighborhood of Portland, Maine, a group of residents rented a warehouse and opened a tool-lending library. The idea was to give locals access to everyday but expensive garage, kitchen, and landscaping tools—such as chainsaws, lawnmowers, wheelbarrows, a giant cider press, and soap molds—to save unnecessary expense as well as clutter in closets and tool sheds.

The residents had been inspired by similar tool-lending libraries across the country—in Columbus, Ohio; in Seattle, Washington; in Portland, Oregon. The ethos made sense to the Mainers. “We all have day jobs working to make a more sustainable world,” says Hazel Onsrud, one of the Maine Tool Library’s founders, who works in renewable energy. “I do not want to buy all of that stuff.”

An attack on an American-funded military group epitomizes the Obama Administration’s logistical and strategic failures in the war-torn country.

Last week, the U.S. finally received some good news in Syria:.After months of prevarication, Turkey announced that the American military could launch airstrikes against Islamic State positions in Syria from its base in Incirlik. The development signaled that Turkey, a regional power, had at last agreed to join the fight against ISIS.

The announcement provided a dose of optimism in a conflict that has, in the last four years, killed over 200,000 and displaced millions more. Days later, however, the positive momentum screeched to a halt. Earlier this week, fighters from the al-Nusra Front, an Islamist group aligned with al-Qaeda, reportedly captured the commander of Division 30, a Syrian militia that receives U.S. funding and logistical support, in the countryside north of Aleppo. On Friday, the offensive escalated: Al-Nusra fighters attacked Division 30 headquarters, killing five and capturing others. According to Agence France Presse, the purpose of the attack was to obtain sophisticated weapons provided by the Americans.